It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Moral Argument logically valid?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The Question here is not whether the premises of the Moral Argument are true but rather if they are valid meaning does the conclusion logically follow based on the 9 rules of logical inference, which can be read here . I created a thread recently on the problem of evil. Many people where claiming it held logical fallacies or the it wasn't logically valid. I am making this thread to show people it is logically valid. Now whether you think it is sound or not is not my concern in this thread. What I expect will happen is even after explaining to them how the conclusion logically follows from the premises I will still have people trying to say that an argument whose format is relatively simple is logically incoherent simply because they are to stupid to understand or to stubborn.


Now lets take a look at the Moral Argument:

If God does not exists, then objective moral values do not exists.
Objective moral values do exists.
Therefore God Exists.


I am about to show you without a shadow of a doubt this is a clear and simple deductive argument that is logically valid by rules of logical inference. If you continue to think it is not logically valid you've simply gone from ignorance to stupidity so pay close attention:
¬ - negation of the statement.
p - God exists
q- Objective Moral Values Exists

1. ¬ p → ¬ q (Premiss)

2. q (Premiss)

3. ¬ ¬ q (Double negation, 2)

4. ∴ ¬ ¬ p (Modus tollens, 1, 3)

5. ∴ p (Double negation, 4)


There ya have it ATS. No Circular reasoning. No logical contradictions and No logical fallacies. A simple and clear deductive argument. If premise 1 and 2 are true the conclusion God exists logically follows. Enjoy!

edit on 25-6-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo




posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You should share this with the world. They could use a little 'God' right now.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

The world is losing the ability to critically think about things and its frustrating lol.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
You just won't give this up... by assigning p to be god exists you are using your conclusion as an assumption.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Even if you prove that God exists through this method, how does that prove the Christian God is real? "God" could be any number of them including but not limited to: Allah, Krishna, Brahma, Zeus, Saturn, Baal, Dionysus, Apollo, etc. etc. etc.

Just because God existing is a logically valid argument it does not follow that Jesus or Yahweh are logically God. You may "prove" that God exists but you cannot prove that your particular one does.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Lol you simply don't know what a deductive argument is. This is not assuming the conclusion. P is what I am trying to prove so obviously the conclusion would be P in a valid deductive argument......you simply are mistaken. I did not use P to prove P...I used the existence of Q to prove the existence of P....



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you aware this exact arguement has been used in academia?

What were the results?

The problem with evil is the reverse. It's an arguement an apologist needs to combat.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sure this Argument doesn't get one to Christianity. I completely agree however it does demolish atheism if the atheist accepts the first two premises then they must in order to maintain a rational belief accept the conclusion simple as that.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier




Are you aware this exact arguement has been used in academia? What were the results? The problem with evil is the reverse. It's an arguement an apologist needs to combat.


I am very aware lol. Yet I fail to see how the existence of Evil would be an issue. Evil is an objective moral value. So we could simply reformulate the argument above to use the same logical format with different statements:

If God does not exists then Evil does not exists.
Evil exists.
Therefore God Exists.

Evil has proven the existence of God. You do agree with premise 2 that Evil exists as you have presented the argument from evil. Therefore I will offer premise 1 as a reductio ad absurdum to you. Please explain a way in which objective moral evil could exists in the absence of God that is not absurd.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well I must have slipped from ignorance to stupidity years ago because little of what you say makes sense to me. You say If God does not exist then objective morals do not exist.
Did I get that part correct? So if that is what you say how is that premise arrived at? I myself cannot get by the assumptive gap in that first premise you offer.

Then you say that objective morals DO exist. Here you do not say IF objective morals exist but rather that the DO. So you here have offered another assumption, seems to me.

So you say take one assumption and add to it another assumption therefore God exists. Seems to me you could just skip all the gobbledygook and say that you assume God exists, over and done with. Seems to me you traded in one assumption for two assumptions to prove that the first assumption was true and not an assumption.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I am quite familiar with deductive arguments. This is an example of a bad deductive argument. Not all deductive arguments are valid.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)


Do you let your kid fall when teaching them to ride a bike?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall




Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God? Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)


This argument rest on two assumptions I doubt you can prove to be necessarily true. First it rest on the assumption that if God is omnipotent he can create any world he likes. This is simply not the case as if God creates a world with truly free creatures then these creatures can freely choose to do evil things. Second it assumes that if God is omnibenevolent then he would not permit evil to exists. Again a statement I don't think you can prove to be true.

The vast majority of modern day philosophers do not use the logical problem of evil for this very reason. Maybe try reading some modern day advancements to ancient philosophy and you'll see this to be the case .



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

Not if any right minded parent can help it. That's why training wheels are a big seller.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Yet you cannot show why this is a bad deductive argument you can only claim it....



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).

(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).

(3) God is perfectly good.

(4) Evil exists.

(5) If God is omnipotent, he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.

(6) If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it.

(7) If God is perfectly good, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.

(8) If God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

(9) If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful.

(10) If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it—that is, he must not be all-knowing.

(11) If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

(12) God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

14) God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.

This is just one arguement

There also rebuttles when you say God has a reason for allowing evil. But I am sure you know that and are trying to persuade those without a philosophy background

One being a parent is not omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good so it's an inappropriate metaphorical example.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I explained it in your last thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just switch out the evil part for the objective morality part.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And you have confused the idea of validity with soundness. I said in the OP I do not care if you think the premises are sound. Rather I am showing that that are valid meaning they do not contain logical fallacies or circular reasoning.






Then you say that objective morals DO exist. Here you do not say IF objective morals exist but rather that the DO. So you here have offered another assumption, seems to me.


No it is not an assumption. I clearly perceive the existence of these values in my everyday life, and it seems rather contradictory to say that torturing babies for fun is evil is true while also believing the statement torturing babies for fun is good is also true. These are truth claims not opinions. Again whether you accept the premises is really not the purpose of the thread but rather to show that it is indeed a logically valid deductive argument.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I enjoy these discussions even though it always makes my brain hurt. Here's another example of affirming the consequent with false conditional logic. The one verse in the Quran which logically eats itself and proves the Quran is indeed written by man. The irony in this one is epic.


Sura 4:82 "If [Quran] had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction"


captaindisguise.blogspot.ca...




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join